So, there is talk and speculation about a possible trust for a possible child. If there is truth to this, then this would be excluded from the Estate. I get it, I understand it. No issues, no problems.

The thing I have been pondering over is this. If there was a trust set up and a child is proven, would then the child, by intestate law also be entitle to the Estate? Would that validate that the siblings/half-siblings are a lower "tier" (and I do not mean that wording in a negative way)?

The existence of a trust for a child proves that one exists. In accordance with law, the successors in order are spouse, which aside from what Claire Nelson believes is none. The next is children, then siblings.

Can I trust by-pass intestate law? Meaning, the child recieves the trust, but not the hiership to the estate?

Also, would there not be some accounting of the a trust in the final accouting records? Would funds for that have to be allocated for to show the Estate where they went?

Last, I find it hard to believe that Prince set up a trust but not a will. My logic and thoughts are simple. A will is perhaps the simplest form of planning. A trust, while simple in nature, could get somewhat detailed. Lawyers asked repeatedly for Prince to make a will or planning. He replied I am not planning on dying (paraphrase). So, why make a trust to leave only the major creative and artistic part of his life open? I mean, the man was music and creation, day in day out.

Just some thoughts for discussion.

nelcp777 said:

laurarichardson said:

--A trust is better than a will you have more control and he was a control freak. I keep thinking we see hard assests like property and money in his corporation for tax purpose but were did that Musicolgy and 21 Nights money go to? He toured Europe continuously and appears to have cut his living expenses down to the bare minimum. I know he gave profits from whole concerts away but I keep thinking he put some in a Trust. I also know that if their is a child a trust can have conditions one of which could be no inheirentence or public acknowledgement. I keep thinking that this is the man that set up a million dollar account for his second wife when they got married and put a house in her name. He took care to make provisions for her before they even got married/divorce. Prince seemed to operate 4 years ahead of everyone else. I keep thinking things are sealed by the court that would explain a lot. [Edited 3/7/17 7:17am]

Good points. I guess if a trust was set up, accounting wise, that would be a seperate entity and not attached to the estate.

No arguement from my end that a trust is better than a will. On that, we agree.

With your speculation about the trust, could Prince not have put everything that is currently in the estate in a trust with the same stipulations? The child inherits everything without pubic acknowledgement? Or let's go a step further, inherits everything without public acknlowedgement, but the siblings are the face of the operation? It is possible.

Why a stipulation on no inhertiance? I can not see an estate planner setting up a trust without considering everything. I know planning an estate/trust/will is hard to do and think about. Finality and what is to happen to your life long work with no control is hard. So, planning for a marriage compared to death is not apples for apples in some aspects. And again, I agree Prince was a control freak.

Which leads me to be partially inclined there is not a trust. Why leave money, which we know Prince was generous to give and donate, but not protect the artistic work which he fought for and protected. I mean, Prince even had fansites taken down.

Things are sealed by the court for a reason, but I think it is to help the estate maximize the business deals. If the current deals information are released, it could create a cap for potential future business endeavours.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

rogifan said:

laurarichardson said:

--You realize people can download and share the clips? Anyway the law is the law and it is not going to change.

Yeah and? They're not sharing things the Estate would otherwise be making money off of. Put this stuff on sale and people won't need to go looking for it on YouTube or social media.

Yes, all of the First Ave album launch concerts My VHS transfer to DVD crap version needs to be done!

PurpleDiamonds1 said:

I also agree he did not plan on dying yet so he may not have bothered with thinking about what would happen if... However, I do find it strange if he had a trust but not a will. He had said his music was like his children. A will would have had say over his music... So knowing that, if he did set up a trust could it have been for his music with NPG? And not a child?

Interesting, but if he did set up a trust with NPG, would that be excluded from the Estate then? Bremer could not take control over NPG Music if it was a trust. The individuals listed in the trust would handle that aspect.

But to support your theory, there was a loan if I recall from the NPG to the estate for about $5M. That could also just support and track the moving of estate assets (money). But why label it as a loan and not a transfer? Prince was the sole shareholder.

Again, why set up a trust but no will. Why not protect the "children" to ensure they are done in the manner he wanted. He obviously had plans for PP, due to notes left around and shared with his inner circle. And, I believe that was simply looking years out to keep some form of revenue around. Just like the real estate.

nelcp777 said:

laurarichardson said:

nelcp777 said:

-/Any money in a trust would have not be s part of the estate and we would know nothing about it. The Llc could have been set up to not be a part of the estate but it was not. I think Prince was in the planning stages of winding things down and who knows he may have had plans to do a will or a trust for his music we just do not know the state of his mind that last months of his life. Illness can effect your thinking. [Edited 3/7/17 9:03am]

Your points are why I am inclined to believe there is not a trust.

Which in a way we can tie this together as well. Tyka was supposed to have provided 2 names of possible children.

Judge Eide has in so much said that he does not anticipate the DNA results to be contrary to the siblings and I am completely paraphasing.

So with that, are we inclined to believe that a trust has not been setup, there are no offspring?

Also, all redactions and sealing of documents are for the better of Estate for deals and future business endeavors?

nelcp777 said:

nelcp777 said:

Your points are why I am inclined to believe there is not a trust.

Which in a way we can tie this together as well. Tyka was supposed to have provided 2 names of possible children.

Judge Eide has in so much said that he does not anticipate the DNA results to be contrary to the siblings and I am completely paraphasing.

So with that, are we inclined to believe that a trust has not been setup, there are no offspring?

Also, all redactions and sealing of documents are for the better of Estate for deals and future business endeavors?

If there was a trust, it was set up YEARS ago.

The DNA would have been completed years ago.

If there is a child with a trust, this child would not be involved in the Estate DNA testing.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

laurarichardson said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

If there was a trust, it was set up YEARS ago.

The DNA would have been completed years ago.

If there is a child with a trust, this child would not be involved in the Estate DNA testing.

--Do we know were the story came from that Tkya gave the judge two names.

Yes

laurarichardson said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

If there was a trust, it was set up YEARS ago.

The DNA would have been completed years ago.

If there is a child with a trust, this child would not be involved in the Estate DNA testing.

--Do we know were the story came from that Tkya gave the judge two names.

Why do you think it would be set up years ago? Is the working papers part of this?

I am just trying to stimulate discussion.

I agree the child would not be part of the Estate DNA testing. But I would think that would simplify the Estate heirs. However, Laura made a good arguement about the trust could have limitations or restrictions.

But, why create only a trust, even years ago and not finish the entire estate planning?

And if a trust was made, why does Tyka have to provide names? The trust in itself would have the names.

Does the stay of proceeding for Mixed Blood mean that the claim is dissallowed? I am a litttle confused on this.

Can someone please clarify what that means in laymen's terms please?

nelcp777 said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

nelcp777 said:

Does the stay of proceeding for Mixed Blood mean that the claim is dissallowed? I am a litttle confused on this.

Can someone please clarify what that means in laymen's terms please?

No, it doesnt mean it was disallowed.

In simplest terms it means it is standing idle for awhile.

It means there will not be any hearings, rulings, motions, etc until the

Judge lifts the Stay.

The real question is, would P have cared?

fortuneandserendipity said:

laurarichardson said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

The real question is, would P have cared?

--What does that have to do with the price of peas.

I don't think P cared much for middle-aged fat women arguing over a KFC, more to the point

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

nelcp777 said:

Does the stay of proceeding for Mixed Blood mean that the claim is dissallowed? I am a litttle confused on this.

Can someone please clarify what that means in laymen's terms please?

No, it doesnt mean it was disallowed.

In simplest terms it means it is standing idle for awhile.

It means there will not be any hearings, rulings, motions, etc until the

Judge lifts the Stay.

Thank you very much for this.

Legally, what is the advantage of doing this?

fortuneandserendipity said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

laurarichardson said:

fortuneandserendipity said: --What does that have to do with the price of peas.

I don't think P cared much for middle-aged fat women arguing over a KFC, more to the point

Phatphuk, is that you again?

nelcp777 said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

No, it doesnt mean it was disallowed.

In simplest terms it means it is standing idle for awhile.

It means there will not be any hearings, rulings, motions, etc until the

Judge lifts the Stay.

Thank you very much for this.

Legally, what is the advantage of doing this?

It could mean many things....

It is rare that a claim is stayed though.

I wish I could give you a better answer.

Mumio said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

I don't think P cared much for middle-aged fat women arguing over a KFC, more to the point

Phatphuk, is that you again?

fortuneandserendipity said:

laurarichardson said:

fortuneandserendipity said: --What does that have to do with the price of peas.

I don't think P cared much for middle-aged fat women arguing over a KFC, more to the point

You sound like someone with small d*** syndrome.

laurarichardson said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

If there was a trust, it was set up YEARS ago.

The DNA would have been completed years ago.

If there is a child with a trust, this child would not be involved in the Estate DNA testing.

--Do we know were the story came from that Tkya gave the judge two names.

Why do you think it would be set up years ago? Is the working papers part of this?

I am just trying to stimulate discussion.

I agree the child would not be part of the Estate DNA testing. But I would think that would simplify the Estate heirs. However, Laura made a good arguement about the trust could have limitations or restrictions.

But, why create only a trust, even years ago and not finish the entire estate planning?

And if a trust was made, why does Tyka have to provide names? The trust in itself would have the names. ]





As private as he was I could totally see him setting up a trust for children perhaps conceived during his marriage or from possible one night stand. I could see him using to provide for child also protect his privacy

Mumio said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

I don't think P cared much for middle-aged fat women arguing over a KFC, more to the point

Phatphuk, is that you again?

Phatphuk is fat! and he's totally ok with it. I remember kidding him over scoffing something or other at Paisley Park and he was cool. His unique presence is missed, make no mistake!